Jump to content

Infidel Dog

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Infidel Dog

  1. 1 hour ago, Rebound said:

    Do not deflect. Show us the law. 

    You're hilarious. You deflect to stuff in some incomplete little factoid you most likely read in the recent USA Today fact check you're desperate to stuff in, then accuse somebody else of deflecting.

    It's OK. I'll follow your strawman with you. As I understand it the executive order only says the vice president has the right to declassify documents he classified.

    Lets' assume that's what happened. All you'd be saying is both Trump and Biden had the power to declassify documents.

    And here's an important little factoid your strutting little strawman forgot to mention.

    Classified documents were found in Biden's home going back to his time as a Senator. 


    First, while there are competing arguments as to the extent of a vice president’s power to declassify documents, there is no world in which a US senator would be able to declassify them. The DoJ recovered documents from Biden’s time as a senator, which raises serious questions as to how they ended up in his personal possession. Several Democratic senators, including Tim Kaine and Dick Durbin, outlined the procedures they would have to go through to even review such materials. Kaine explained that he is only shown classified material in a SCIF (a sensitive compartmented information facility), while Durbin said he would sometimes be able to review it behind a locked door in his office with a handler present. They were never allowed to take these documents with them. How was Biden able to do so? Did he steal them?"

    Also concerning the differences between the authority of Trump to declassify documents versus Biden there's this:


    Comparatively, Trump claimed he had a standing order to declassify all documents that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago at the end of his first term as president. There is a dispute over whether he went through the appropriate procedure to declassify documents — and if there is any evidence of this “standing order” — but there is no question as to whether he had the authority to do it."



  2. Back on the subject of sea level rise I believe you were wanting to make a big deal of the 25 years NASA cut out of the sea level rise record based on new satellite data.

    Sure and here's a girl reading off cards telling her what else is happening in the current sea level rise discussion. She talks about a recent study giving better access to data on Ocean eddies and how this tells us the melt around Antarctica is actually leveling off so you can take 25% off current projections.

    (She's a cutie. Worth watching just to hear her call tornadoes tomatoes.)

    My best guess is nobody knows what's actually coming but until they do I'm going by the last 100 years. 7 inches of sea level rise.

  3. 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

    Also important to point out that Al Gore is a spokesperson, and a politician.  There's no science being generated by this person.

    Think Hannity.  Just a talking head.

    Also important to point out that without Al Gore all this climate hysteria doesn't happen.

    If you want to pretend what's happening as far as the effects of climate on society is only about the science go for it but observance of the obvious tells us most of it is political.

    • Like 3
  4. Yeah well, you're pretty partisan. So am I, I guess, but I believe in not ignoring the obvious. That's the difference between the two of us.

    Disney in Florida confirmed my belief it had swung left. Atlanta and the moving of the all star game cemented something I already thought I knew about Pepsi. And if you're going to try to convince me or anybody with their eyes open the corporate media doesn't have a strong leftist bias I don't like your chances.

    As to the Keystone Pipeline, canceling it was stupid. You don't need influence from the remaining Koch brother to see that. 

    I hope you know leftist billionaire Warren Buffet has big money invested in trains. If oil doesn't move by pipe it moves by rail.

  5. 4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    2. Yes but sea level rise is accelerating. That's well known and documented. They even took that into consideration in the early part of the century, and they underestimated.I

    There have been recent periods of acceleration. Find a graph. It goes up and it goes down. I believe it's been slowing down the last couple of years, hasn't it?

  6. 3 hours ago, Rebound said:

    I didn’t realize that M&M’s are a leftist candy. 

    No? They're brief and unsuccessful journey into woke, wasn't a good enough hint for you. Did you know Pepsi or Disney or most legacy media were part of the corporate left? Do you believe there is such a thing as the corporate left? Because there is. It's kind of becoming the thing. It's where they're starting to place their bets. Why? You're guess is as good as mine. And now, Republican is taking over the leftist mantle of the party of the people. 

  7. 4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. If you cherry pick the crazy ones, as often happens, and quote those back then yes they don't happen.  I looked at a few sources - not blogs but research organizations have indicated that while temperature predictions are aligning, sea level rise is outpacing predicitions.

    First, on the track...you don't have a clue what you're talking about and I'm not getting into why I do, but you should take my word for it. It's one of the four five topics I know more than the average guy about. Betting the favourite to show will give you a pleasant Sunday at the track where you might make enough to buy yourself a cheese burger and a beer. And if you lose it won't be enough to hurt. That's not the way professionals bet though and they are around.

    Too bad you're not R&R I'd tell you to take out a second mortgage and take your genius idea to the track to get rich. ;)

    Now on sea level rise...

    If you use the last hundred years of real world data you're going to get Six years per century to Eight using a period from 1993 . At one time I used to just see 7 per century as the estimate of current rise but those seem to have disappeared. Nevertheless 6 to 8 remains seven as far as I'm concerned.

  8. 5 hours ago, Rebound said:

    You’re just making this up. 
    The reality is that glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland, and interior glaciers as well, are all melting at extreme rates, which will increase sea level. This will make hurricanes even more destructive to the coasts.  

    The NOAA has been tracking both glaciers and the seasonal extents of the Arctic ice caps for decades, and the warming trend is very clear. And it is dangerous to humankind. 

    The reason you don’t believe this is simple: You don’t WANT to believe it. Your TEAM doesn’t want to believe it. It’s part of your social identity. You can’t be on the TEAM if you merely believe these basic scientific facts. AND IT WILL HURT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ONE DAY. 

    Liberals aren’t saying these things to “win.”  I don’t win any more than anyone else.  The simple truth is that we need to accelerate our use of renewable electricity generation and transition quickly to electric vehicles.  

    Currently the sea level rise is about 7 inches per hundred years. That can be easily adapted to.

    When exactly were you expecting to see this massive flooding of the coast land caused by this Greenland/Antarctic glacial melt? We've been hearing these scare stories since Gore. Who by the way bought ocean front property with his global warming windfall money. As did say another true believer of the the democrat party named Biden with wherever his found millions came from. Oh yeah, and Obama. What do they know about Greenland/Antarctic melt that they don't fear drowning in their new multi million dollar beach bungalows?

  9. 1 hour ago, Rebound said:

    If a 30,000 year old glacier has been melting for 30,000 years, wouldn’t it be fully melted by now? They can carbon date ice to determine when it froze.

    Ok when heat lands on the edge of a glacier it melts. You've got that bit down. Now let's guess what happens when snow lands in the interior.

    Overall though the melting generally, in most cases, gradually but eventually wins out. There are cases of exceptions though where the odd glacier is actually increasing.

  10. 2 hours ago, Hodad said:

    Anyone who has spent more than a half hour researching the matter can tell you that scientists aren't divided on the matter. There are piles of polls and surveys of the scientific community, but the peer-reviewed work  is most telling. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. 


    You're going to have to trust me on this. Over the decade or so I've been interested in this topic I've spent more than a half hour reading both sides of the discussion.

    There are more than a few of the study cataloguing papers like the one you offered. They generally have questionable methodology and in the final analysis don't say what you want them to. For example here's somebody who looked closely at yours:


    Plain text: only 19 out of 3000 examined works quantify the human influence on the climate. The rest obviously do not make quantifiable statements. And even those 19 works do not analyze how the influence was quantified. A quantification of 50% anthropogenic share would already be evidence of the so-called consensus, but in other contexts it would already contradict the IPCC and the judgment of the climate opponent. Although the 2104 works are relevant and describe climate change, they do not even make implicit statements about the human cause. Why not? To speak of a far-reaching consensus of over 99% is truly brazen!"


    And I'm not sure where you got the idea the paper you cite is peer reviewed. The studies he catalogued were peer reviewed but according to what IOP tells me to look for to see if a paper is peer reviewed at their site yours doesn't seem to be.


    And if we're running true to form the next thing a Climate Alarmist would do would be to tell me my cite can't be considered because he considers them big, fat poopy-heads. Something like that anyway.

    Very well show me in your cited reference then where it says a consensus of scientists say climate doom is coming. 

    This is important because if you're wrong (and you are) 99% of climate scientists aren't telling us Warmageddon is coming so why do we need all the new regulations, restrictions, governance and societal upheavals? I'll answer that one for you. We don't.

  11. 8 minutes ago, reason10 said:


    o: September 23, 1846
    p: November 13, 1846

    13th Planet (1846)[a]
    8th Planet (1851)
    Galle and Le Verrier[29][30]
    o: October 10, 1846
    p: November 13, 1846
    Triton moon mosaic Voyager 2 (large).jpg
    Neptune I Lassell[31]
    o: September 16, 1848
    p: October 7, 1848
    Hyperion true.jpg
    Saturn VII Bond, Bond,[32]Lassell[33]
    o: October 24, 1851 Ariel
    Ariel (moon).jpg
    Uranus I Lassell[26]
    PIA00040 Umbrielx2.47.jpg
    Uranus II
    o: August 12, 1877 Deimos
    Mars II Hall[34][35][36]
    o: August 18, 1877 Phobos
    Phobos colour 2008.jpg
    Mars I
    o: September 9, 1892
    p: October 4, 1892
    Amalthea (moon).png
    Jupiter V Barnard[1][37]
    i: August 16, 1898
    o: March 17, 1899
    Phoebe cassini.jpg
    Saturn IX Pickering[38][39]

    Those are the time lines for the discoveries of the planets I mentioned.



    So where's Pluto. At one time we were told that was a planet.

  12. 29 minutes ago, Rebound said:

    Are you blind?

    Puerto Rico destroyed by hurricane

    Bahamas destroyed by hurricane

    New Orleans destroyed by hurricane

    California city destroyed by largest-ever wildfire

    Oregon skies turned orange throughout state from largest-ever wildfires

    Highest temperatures ever recorded 

    Ice caps and glaciers that are 30,000 years old have been melting. 

    Ignoring all that evidence makes you an ldiot

    Weather, Buddy. Look it up. There was the pacific ocean equivalent of a hurricane that hit Seattle and Vancouver in the 60s. It's never happened since. We were told Atlantic landfall hurricanes were going to mightily increase immediately after one IPCC conference. They went quiet for over a decade. Then they started up again. Has to do with wind shear and ocean confluences. Has nothing to do with how much oil you use to heat your home in the winter.

    There's no support for the idea anything listed has never happened before. Even your historical temperature record only covers 150 years.

    And the 30,000 years old glaciers that are melting have been melting for 30,000 years.

  13. 5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

    Most of those facts relate to things we cannot see or measure, such as the skin color of a dinosaur or the composition of subatomic particles. And I think even particle scientists were always pretty clear that sub-sub-atomic particles may exist.  

    But temperature is measurable, and the composition of the upper atmosphere is measurable. The theory that CO2 is increasing is measurable and proven and the theory that it is warming the planet is measurable proven. 

    Ask yourself this: Why do you feel it is so important to seek out every anti-climate change article you can, and to believe only that?  Have you ever once thought, “What if I am wrong?”

    Hang on. I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I was just talking with you about termites. I was just saying I thought the proposal termites created more CO2 evolved into the science seeming to tell me they were talking about methane.

    You know like at one time the accepted belief was disease was caused by vapors then Pasteur comes along and shows us germs.

    Or there was no continental drift then Wegener comes along and shows us there was. 

  14. 5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

    Sigh. This is going to be as fruitless and pointless as ever, but this person (the Chairman of these two companies) is listening to climate scientists specifically because he has multibillion dollar businesses to protect, nurture and grow. 

    And make no mistake, climate scientists are nearly unanimous in their recognition of anthropogenic warming and climate change, and have been for decades. There is not a single scientific body on the planet that denies anthropogenic warming. The last group to abandon their dissent were the Petroleum Geologists, who stopped dissenting in 2007. That's it. Now just a few lonely voices in the scientific community offer dissent, and typically for questionable motivation. 

    It is because of the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus that companies like Siemens and Maersk and literally every other major enterprise are investing millions if not billions in adopting sustainable business practices. 

    Now, you are welcome to desperately search out some heterodox meteorologist or something who denies climate change, and you can say that this person is right instead of the overwhelming scientific consensus being right, but since you lack the ability to conduct any independent research it's clearly not a belief based in logic. It would be like going to 10 doctors who all tell you your cholesterol is dangerously high and you need to change your diet, and instead of listening to them, you look, and look, and look for just one doctor to tell you he thinks you'll be okay. You can choose to ignore scientific and medical advice because you simply love potato chips and petroleum, but there's nothing smart or honest about it. And for an individual actor with individual consequences (death by potato chip), fine with me, kettle-cook your arterieries into concrete tubes. But when it comes to a shared planet and shared consequences other people get to vote. 

    That whole post is so rife with little contextual errors it would take ten pages to begin to cover it.

    But let's just start here. If I understand your stance correctly you're saying what you're now suggesting "climate change" is the believe that man's use of fossil fuels is causing or will cause calamities on earth so severe the survival of man is in jeopardy. And you say you have a nearly unanimous  consensus of scientists who are willing to put their reputations to it.

    Very well, produce it.


  15. 1 hour ago, reason10 said:

    Science doesn't change based on fashion or public opinion. Science remains FACT, and facts don't care about your feelings.

    In the 19th Century,  Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Neptune were discovered. Are you now going to say those planets do not exist based on the information being old?


    I don't know...

    I think maybe you want to review what you think you know about science.

    Science by its nature it changes. Facts don't change by they are challenged by other facts. And old facts are often revealed to be not quite so factual. 

    For example, why isn't Pluto on your list of planets? ;)

    Our understanding of things is in constant flux. Science adapts with the scientific method. Hypothesis to theory through experimentation and study.

    Try these:





  16. 10 hours ago, Rebound said:

    Sheesh, talk about triggered! Tucker even loses it over M&M cartoon candies.

    No, he wasn't. I saw his segment. He was laughing his head off at M&Ms being ridiculous.

    One of the many things the woke can't handle is being laughed at.

    We should do more of it. It's pretty easy.

  17. 15 minutes ago, Rebound said:

    . If climate change makes 30% of that land unproductive, it can have catastrophic effects.

    Yeah, and "if wishes were horses beggars would ride."

    Don't try to scare me with an "if." Show me that happening if you think you can. But don't bother. It's not.

    Pardon me, it is in certain locales. Would you like to know what is cutting crop yields by at least 30%? It isn't because of climate change. Not per se anyway.

    Global Resetter types have been pushing weak-minded politicians to ban chemical fertilizers. I think they are using what they call "climate change" as an excuse.

    Sri Lanka Collapses and Dutch Farmers Revolt. Blame ‘Green’ Policies.

  • Create New...